products_search

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it has side effects, what authentication is needed, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the return format looks like. For a search tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this is critically inadequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

While technically concise with just two words, this is a case of harmful under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description doesn't contain enough information to be useful, so its conciseness is detrimental. No structure exists beyond the minimal phrase.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (6 parameters including arrays and nested objects), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what the tool actually does, how to use it, what it returns, or when to choose it over alternatives.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description 'Search products' provides zero information about any parameters - not what 'query' searches, what 'limit' controls, what 'after' means for pagination, how 'sorts' work, what 'properties' returns, or how 'filterGroups' operates. The description fails completely to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Search products' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'products_search'. While it indicates the verb 'search' and resource 'products', it provides no additional specificity about what kind of search this is, what scope it covers, or how it differs from other search tools in the sibling list like 'crm_search_companies' or 'emails_search'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling search tools (e.g., crm_search_companies, emails_search, calls_search) but no indication whether this searches a product catalog, inventory system, or something else. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context is mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.